The Sun. — London, England, 1838-03-02 00:00:00

PRIVATP ARLIE BILENTLS BROUGHT INTO AMT WEEK. THE THAMES IMPROVEMENT COMPANY AND DRAINAGE NIANURE ASSOCIATION. Preamble states, that it is expedient and desirable to pre serve and render available for agricultural purposes the depo sits created by the drainage that now falls into the River Thames from the public sewers of London, Southwark, Lam beth, Westminster, and the vicinity. And that by so doing, the water of the River Thames will be freed from its present state of pollution, and the navigation of the River greatly improved, and the air rendered more pure. And that the objects aforesaid may be effected by making tanks and connecting sewers at certain places is or near to the margin of the said River. The object of this Bill is to incorporate a Joint Stock Com pany for such purposes. The Bill incorporates certain persons named in the Bill, and the other subscribers to the undertaking, b' the name of " The Thames Improvement Company, and Drainage Ma nure Association." The Company is empowered to purchase by consent, or take on lease " any lands above or below high water mark in the River Thames and elsewhere," which the Company may think necessary for the purposes of tho Act, and power is given to persons under disability to sell lands to the Company. Upon the lands purchased by the Company, " or used or ho!cl by them for the purposes of the Act," they are empowered to erect such tanks, receptacles and other works, upon and near to the margin of the river Thames, not extending in any place more than sixty feet beyond tlae margin into the river, as may be seen to them suitable and necessary for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act. They are further empowered to convert, widen, alter, divert, open, and stop up such sewers, drains, pipes, watercourses, caannels, and passages for discharging the drainage into such tanks, and securing- it from polluting the river as the Directors of the Company for the time being shall think proper and expedient. Ifote.—There is no provision for the works being constructed under the direction of persons interested to protect the sewers, or the navigation of the river ; nor any provision for making compensation for temporary damage done by the Company. The Company is empowered to raise a capital of 500,0001., in shares of 501. each, and further power is given them (clause 73), by a vote of two successive meetings, from time to time, to increase the capital by issue of fresh shares, with• out limit. They are empowered, so soon as one-half of the capital is paid up, to borrow 130,000/. on mortgage or bond. The profis are to be annually divided among the proprie- tors, power being given to the Directors to set apart, if they think fit, one eighth part, to accumulate as a guarantee fund to answer any extraordinary expenses. The amount of the gua rantee fund i, limited to one eighth of the capital then paid. The affairs of the Company are to be managed by twelve directors and a chairman. The fii st chairman and directors are named in the Bill : two of the latter being named as ma naging directors. The present directors continue in office till the first general meeting in 1842, when two of the body (not the managing directors) retire, with capacity for re-election, and their places are to be supplied by election of the proprie tors. Two, iii like manner, retire, and are supplied in every succeeding year. The qualification is omitted to be stated. The directors are to cause proper accounts to be kept, and a statement and report of the affairs of the Company to be made out half yearly and entered in the books of the Company. Of this statement a summary or balance sheet is to be made for theinspection of the proprietors of anv general meeting, "but at no other time."--( Clause 22 ) It is expressly provided that no proprietor shall be entitled to inspect the books, ac counts, or document; of the Company, except " such as mat be produced for that purpose at any general meeting."— ( Cause 51.) The directors are not required to take security from the treasurer or other officer for keeping the accounts. The directors are (though not expressly) empowered to fix their own remuneration unt:l after 1843.—( Clauses 16 and 48.) The future remuneration is to be fixed by the proprie tors at any annual meeting after 1843. No r 'course is in any ca7e given against the treasurer or other officer of the Company. A penalty not exceeding 507., besides compensation, is im posed upon any person wilfully committing an) damage or nuisance on the Company's works, or molesting or interrupt: in g the free passage of any person employed on the works, to be recovered before one Justice, and levied by distress. In default of sufficient distress, imprisonment not exceeding six months. Among the Clauses are found the following : 42, 43. Retirement and election of Directors. Note._Qualfication of Directors is not -stated, nor mode of election ; and the clause is arnbiguous as to the retire ment of the managing Directors. 51. No Proprietor to inspect b)olts, except at genera. rneetingi, Note. —The books then to be inspected are " such es may he produced for that purpose ;" and see Clause 37. 53, 54. Transfer of shares. Note. —Previous approval of the Directors is to be obtained. 55, 35. Transmission of shares to representatives. Note.—The represeat , tive desiring to retain the shares to obtain the approval of the Directors, and the ra is no pro vision hi case of non appr:Nal. 53. Forfeited shares may I - 43 cxtinguihed or sold at the discretion of Directors. Note.—The conditions of forfeiture are nowhere explicitly stated. CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN UNION RAIL'..VA V. The objet t rf this Bill is to empowee the Company, which was inc•_:.pc,ra!ed by an Art of the Gth of the late king, to vary a pordee of the line of ihtir Railway, i. e. from Frampten Coenmon in the parish cf SJpperton, county G:ouccistcr, to the northern Extremity of Hayley Wood, in the same pads!: ; ar.d to give theta further power:4. It. ceteeds the period of cumpulsery purchase the end of three years from the passing of the Act, and the time limited for the completion of the undertakiew to the 21st June, 1545. I: authorises the holding of general meetings, either at Gloucester, Stroud, Cirencester er Cheltenham, instead ef Cheltenham only, as required by the former Act. By the former Act, the Company are empowered, in ease their capital (750,0001.) shcu'd be found irsufacient for the purposes, ef the Act, to raise a further sum of 250 000 L, either by way of mortg:ige, i r by the issuing of additional shares. The, p-e=ent Bill einpewer, the Company to raise the addi tional 250,009. as soon as half tare capital shall have beets paid up. The Bill contains a Clause (11) enacting, that "in cal case= where, br the said rceited Act, the Company are authorised or empeeer.el, eith.r expressly or by impii.iation, to creel upon any Lolls," and the owner refuses to deliver possess:: n, it shall he ltiveful for the Company to issue their ware art to the to deliver possession. Prea-nble states, that it would materially impreve the un dertalting, if power were given to the Corepeny-te malre a deviatiou :n a portion of the line, and to amtnel some of the powers sod provisions of their Act. THE NECROPOLIS CEMETERY BILL. Preamble states that it will be for the benefit of the public at large that a Cemetery for the burial of the dead, on an extensive and enlarged scale, 31:oula be established in an open seuation in the vicini'y of the metropolis; and that the se veral persons therein nano, d are willin' at their own costs and charges to establish such Cemetery. The object of this Bill is to incorporate a Join'- Stock Ce metery Company, with power to construct a Cemetery on Haversteck-hill, in the parish of St. Pancras. Tne Bill incorporates the subscribers to the undertaking ureler the neme of "the Necropolis Cemetery Comp any." It empowers the Comp .:fly to raise a capital of 150,000/. in shares of 251. each, and to purchase (by agreement) not exceeding seventy st:iti.t.i acres of land "at Haverstock-hill,' with a restriction that no part of the burial-ground is to be situate within 300 yards of any house haling a plantation or ornamental garden, except by consent. A Ch , p!ain of the Church of England is to be appointed by the Company, to be lit ensed by the Bishop of the Diocese, and subject to his jurisdiction, and removable by him, subject to an appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Chaplain is he paid a salary, and removable by the Company. A Registry of Burials is to be kept by the Chaplain, or other officers appointed by the Company, which is to be on the same footing as registers kept by Rectors, Vicars, or Cu rates, according to the law of the land. Provision is made for compensation to the incumbents and clerks of churches and chapels within ten miles of theCemetry, in cases where bodies are removed from the parishes or dis tricts of such churches or chapels, for interment within the cemetry. Ms. to the Incumbent", and Is. to the Cleik. The affairs of the Company are to be conducted by a body of Directors, of whom six are named in the Bill, to go out by rotation, two every second year, with capability of re-election. The Directors for the time being, prior to the first general half-yearly meeting, have power to appoint a " resident Di rector," and also additional Directors, so that the whole num ber do not exceed ten. The resident Director is to continue in office until removed therefrom, from misconduct, or other reasonable cause.— Page 35. The Directors are excepted from personal liability, for their acts as Directors. Note.—No recourse is in any case given against the Trea surer or other individual Member or Officer of the Company. " Costs or Expenses" are to be recovered by distress of the Goods and Chattels of the Company.—Page 49. DEE BRIDGE ROADS' BILL. The object of this Bill is to extend the term and enlarge the powers of an Act of 57 Geo. 111. (which expires in the present year) for maintaining certain Roads in the County of Kincardine (Scotland). SUDDEN DEATH OF A BURGLAR—On Friday night last the house of Mr. Pozzi, an extensive wadding manufacturer, in Coleman-street, Bunhill-row, was forcibly entered, and a large quantity of wadding and cotton-wool car ried off. Serjeant Seal, an active officer of the G division of polic e , un d ertoo k t o trace the thieves, and, in the course of his inquiries, he received information which induced him to proceed to a house in Tenter-street, Whitechapel, where he found the greater part of the property, and obtained further information, which confirmed his suspicions that an old Irish man in the neighbourhood had taken an active part in the bur glary. On Sunday evening. he went, in, company with an other policema n , to apprehend him, and, on entering the room, he found between thirty and forty of the lowest class of Irish engaged in " leaking" a corpse ; and, on inquiring for his man, he ascertained that he had been cited before a higher tribunal to answer for his offences, for he had suddenly dropped doe n dead that morning, and was the subject of the wild funeral rites performing. The liCti cant has succeeded in capturing seven other prisoners. PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PARLIA- MENT.-(YESTERDAY.) COMMITTEE—MIDDLESEX LIST. NOTTING-HILL FOOTWAY BILL. Lord GEORGE LENNOX in the Chair. Captain Alexander, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Byng (Middlesex), Mr. Btliew, Mr. Forbes, Mr. M'Taggart, Lord Melgund, Mr. Pryme, Mr. G. Phillips, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Tancred, Captain Wood (Middlesex). This is a Bill to divert a footpath, but, at the same time to secure to Mr. White the exclusive benefit of the Hippodrome. Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHER, for the Bill, in along address, stated the great abuses and filthy indecencies to which this neighbourhood had previously been subjected ; that this plan of a race-course was a great public improvement ; that at present the public took the advantage of the footpath to rush in upon the race course ; that Mr. White had expended about 6001. or NU in giving plates as prizes, and that he might at once be protected, and yet substitute another footpath for the public by the way of Portobello-lane, is at present impassable. Mr. AOLIONBY asked if it were admitted that there was at present a right of footway. The Learned Counsel acknowledged that there was a right of footway, but contended that the offered substitute would be infinitely better. Mr. Morr said that they had no notice of the intended new footway, which did not lead to the great points of the present one. As he acted for the parochial authorities, and numerous inhabitants, he contended that this new line of road would not be of equal convenience to them. Sergeant MEREWETUER said he would grant any time, or any other accommodation that might be desired, as his only object was to conciliate those who acted for the public. Mr. AGLIONBY observed that the new plan now put in, did not show the same line as that which was deposited in the Private Bill Office. Sergeant INIEBEWETHER said the plan so deposited was not intended to show the substitute, which was to be left, to this ' Committee, and to the three Justices named in the Bill, to see that it was effectually done, and much further than Potobello lane, before Mr. White should have the right of stopping up this footway. Mr. AOLIONBY asked whether his client had yet the power to do so. Sergew;t MEREIVETHER said a small part belonged to S:r George Talbot's property, and he could not yet say Sir George had assented, but Mr.• White was ready to deposit a sum of money to carry on such road, whenever such assent should be received. He strongly appealed to the opposing Counsel and the parochial authorities to mention what were the points in issue, in order that, if possible, they might be arranged. 'Mr. Morr said that one of the first points was the Hip podrome itself, which his clients considered to be a great public nuisance ; secondly, that the present footway was of much more importance to the inhabitants than the one pro posed ; and thirdly, that the proceedings were contrary to the Standing Orders of the HouSe. Sergeant MEREWETUER said be hoped that they would have conceded something, especially as he had conceded at the first that his client would pay the expense of the opposition. He thought the only question should be the diversion of the path. The ground of the Hippodrome was Mr. White's private property. Ma. Brno said his constituents did not care one tittle about a new road, or a diversion of the old one. What they wished was to prevent that great nuisance the Hippodrome altogether —he cared nothing for Mr. White's offer of money, for the more he spent the more he must make up by the profligacy he encouraged. Lord GEORGE LENNOX said, as to expenses he had pledged Mr. White in the House of Commons to pay all reasonable expenses as to the tight of the public foot-path, but certainly not into an enquiry as to the benefit or injury of the Hippo drone itself, which this Committee could not stop, as the ground was his own property. Mr. MOTT said, that nine actions had been commenced against individuals for trespasses on this very footpath, which it was now admitted was a public right ; he, however, would not dernd upon that, but would ask whether, under all the circumstances of the case, Mr. White should be permitted to stop up a footpath for such a purpose as the Hippodrome and its games, which were not specified? Captain Wcon aid it was ab urd that Mr. White hould he called to pay the expense of proving that his own Hippodrome was a nuisance. Of course, the Committee ought to enquire into that point before they would allow the Bill to eo on. A long contention took place between the Learned Counsel as to the mode of carrying on the case, in order to determine as to the amount of expense to which Mr. White was to be subjected. The room was cleared, in order that the question of limi tation of expense should be decided. The Committee decided that Mr. White's pledge should only extend to the diversion cf the footpath, and the evidence thereupon.—Counsel against the Bill might afterwards is into the question of the character of the Hippodrome itself at their own expense. Mr. John Braithwaite, civil engineer, who put in the plan, was then called t , ) show that the intended footway was near, than the present one by 945 yards ; that the present footwal was in a bad state in wet weather; and that if Poilobello•lane were put in .g:oel repair it would be much better than the pre sent footway. An old plan, lip - in a very la-ge scale was put in, of the date of 1740, in which the pretei.t footway did not appear. Cross-exereined by Mr. Mo - rr —Had heard that there was a right of foutivey to cross the Canal to Kensal-green, about five or sx yeirs ago, beyond the in!endcd footpath, and in connection with it. There is no such footpath now, as there is no bridge. There were other branch footwav a leading from tiOrtereSent footway. The Great Western. Rail way and Thames Junction Rail-:vay would coirc near this fo t.: path. Had heard that the terminus of the Thames Junction and Birmiegbern Railway was to be near. The junction of the Thames Junction and Great Weetern Railway would be in Woimwcol Scrubby. The population in the neighbourhood will be streatly increased by the Railways. The present foot -Nett over the dill was certainly the best as a pleasure walk. Committee adjourned till to-morrow at twelve. COMMITTEE ON BILLS (SOMERSET LIST.) Mr. StIEPPARD in the Chair. Warminster and Frome Road.—This Bill passed the Com mittee without opposition. ELECTION COMMITTEES. (Continued from our First Edition of yesterday.) CITY OF LONDON ELECTION COMMITTEE. The Poll-books were received in evidence without any dispute M. T ) I, r, I,te a Clerk to Mr. Croue'ler, ryas then called in order to prove agency on ihe part of ti:lt gentiernr.n, for the sitting Members. II.: was procce.;ling to prove acts done by him, when Mr. AUSTIN objected. Nothing had been proved to connect Mr. Croucher with the sitting Members; therefore no acts affecting them, done by him, could he given in evidence. Mr. WRANGII AM was going to prove agency, by showing the acts done by Mr. Croucher for the then candidates, and until he had by that means proved the agency, he would nut give in evidence any one criminal act. The Committee-room was then cleared, and the Committee had not decided the point when the Speaker took the Chair, , and the Committee adjourned till to-morrow. YOUGHAL. The scrutiny proceeded on each side alternately until fou o'clock, when the petitioner was in a majority of one. TAUNTON. The result of this day's scrutiny places the sitting Merduer n a majority of one. BELFAST. At the close of the scrutiny this day, Lord Belfast was five a head cf the petitioners. TFIE TWOPENNY POST LETTER CARRIERS. — On Friday a deputation of Members of Parliament, comprising Messrs. O'Connell and Wallace, Sir G. Sinclair, Captain Polhill, and Major Aglionby, waited upon the Lords of the Treasury with a memorial from the Twopenny Post Letter Carriers, complaining of the hardships imposed upon them in consequence of the late great increase to their duties (an extra delivery and collection every day), without an increase of remuneration, and praying their Lordships to consider their case, and grant them some relief. The deputation was accompanied by some of the men, for the purpose of either stating their grievances themselves, or rendering any required assistance to the Gentlemen who had so kindly become their advocates, but they were not called in. The Lords of the Treasury present were Mr. F. Baring, Mr. Labouchere, and Lord Melbourne. Colonel Maberly, the Secretary to the Post-office, was also in attendance. The memorial having been read by Mr. O'Connell, and some little conversation relative thereto having passed, Lord Melbourne Ras pleased to state that he would give the case his best consideration. It is sincerely to be hoped that his Lordship will do so, and no doubt a remedy may thee be speedily anticipated. The case of these men is one of peculiar hardship, and not to re medy it is not only injustice to them, but impolitic as regards the public. It is above twenty years since their present salary (20s. per week) was fixed, and at that time the duties were not one-third what they at present are ; besides, a liberal increase of income has been granted to the officers employed in the higher department: of the office, in some instances amounting to more than double, and the low salaries of these poor fellows remain entirely unchanged, at least for the better, for additional duty creating additional responsibility and losses, by mistakes and credit, their emoluments are even less. There is no class of men employed by the Government who have such arduous duties to perform, andwho get so badly paid; whilst there is no class of men, as servants of the public, the proper performance of whose duties involve so much the interests and laapt,iness of the community at large. It cannot be expected for tho paltry pittance which these men receive that their duties can be honestly and properly performed, and, therefore, it is impolitic not to pay them better. The names of the above gentlemen show they have some able and influential ad vocates, and we trust their efforts will prove successful. On Sunday evening, shortly before seven o'clock, the persons traversing the streets at the western end of the metropolis were thrown into a state of considerable excite ment by the appearance of a bright light in the heavens, which was at first believed to be occasioned by some extensive, though distant conflagration, but which was soon ascertained to have been caused by a large fiery meteor which passed from south east to north-west, and was finally lost in the distance, leav ing behind it a long white luminous streak, extending from point to paint. It was visible about three minutes, and hun dreds of persons collected at the corners of streets and in the various squares to watch its progress. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1835. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS, MARcs 1. The Lola) Csimecreeon took his seat at Five o'Clock on the Woolsack. Mr. BARN any and others brought up the Custody of Insane Persons Bill with the amendments agreed to, and two private Bills. • Lord FOLEY presented a petition, signed by 1,500 of the inhabitants of Kidderminster, praying for the total and imme diate abolition cf Slavery. ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from cer itain inhabitants of the City of Cork, which, as it was not very long, but very important, he moved that it should be read by the Clerk'of the House. [The petition set forth that by the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill in 1829. a se rious alteration was made in the security of the ecclesiastical property of this country, and by which the Roman Ca tholics of the United Kingdom were rendered eli gible to various offices and scats in Parliament. That notwithstanding the oath taken by Roman Catholics, upon entering into office and taking seats in Parliament, not to subvert the Protestant Church or weaken the esta blished religion, the petitioners had viewed with great' alarm certain persons of this description openly avowing themselves in favour of the overthrow of the Established Church. The petitioners called their Lordships' atten tion more particularly to the fact of conspiracies existing amongst other places in Cork and Carlow, for the express purpose of taking away the lives of Protestants by base and false swearing on the part of Roman Catholics, and which it was apprehended had succeeded in numerous instances, and the petitioners prayed their Lordships to adopt such mea sures as might be calculated to render the sworn engagements of the Roman Catholics effectual for the purposes for which they were intended.] The Right Rev. Prelate stated that the petition which their Lordships had just heard read, represented that a solemn compact had been made between the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom and this Protestant State, before they were admitted to the benefits which the Roman Catholic Relief Act gave them ; and as it had been denied that such a compact had been entered into, he should feel it to be his duty to make a few observations to the House, showing that such a compact had been made. It had been denied, if re liance could be placed in the published reports of the last session of Parliament (and he did not know why re liance should not be placed on them), by Mr. O'Connell, on the 11th of March, 1834, when he moved that a Select Committee should be appointed to con sider the oaths taken by Members of that House. He then stated that in 1829 they had not been asked by the Govern ment to make any compact or contract, and they had made none ; that a seat in Parliament was not to be considered by by them as a privilege, but as a matter of right. This was the statement of that Member, after Lord Althorp and Sir R. Peel had both declared their extreme regret that, within so few years, this matter should again be brought before the conside ration of the House. Lord Althorp said, as well as he (the Right Rev. Prelate) recollected, on that occasion, that if it had been conceived possible that within five years from the passing of that Act such a proposition could have been made in either House of Parliament, he was quite sure the measure would not have been carried. Sir Robert Peel went more at large into the subject to show there had been a compact. Now it had never been contended that there had been a compact entered into with all the necessary forms of recognized powers ; but it was a question of common sense and common feeling, whether what had passed on both sides did or did Lot amount to a compact. He (the Right Rev. Prelate) did not see all the Noble Lords present who were likely to be in a condition to know what passed between the Roman Catholics and the Pro testant leaders of the House of Commons at that time Noble Lords who must know whether any thing like a compact passed even then ; hut there were some in their Lordships' House who must have. known, and he ventured to express a hope that they would have the goodness to say, if it were contradicted now, whether there was a compact entered into at that time, or a ything that amounted to one ?--( Cries of " Hear.") Whatever might be the result of that appeal, he should take leave to show that enough had passed on the pert of the Ro man Catholics in making their applications to Parliament to make them contracting parties to any measure which might be passed for their relief.—( Hear, hear.) They were called by the humble name of petitions at first, though after wards they were in the nature of demands for relief. He would take short extracts from certain petitions which that body had presented at various times to the House.—( H ea r, hear.) The first to which he would allude was one pre sented in the year 1757 from Dr. O'Keefe, a Mr. O'Connell and others, in which they stated "that it has been objected to us that we wish to subvert the present Protestant Establish meet. We hereby earnestly and solemnly abjure any such intention, and we hereby solemnly pledge our selves that we will not exercise the privilege of the elec tive franchise, if granted to us, for any such purpose." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman to whom he had furs e ly alluded denied that the elective franchise was a privilege, and claimed it as a right ; yet it was singular to see that in the very earli,st movement made by the Catholic party it was called it a pri,i`ege. The neat he would allude to was presented in 1805, and was the more sinnular as being the the first signed by Mr. O'Connell. It stated that the Catholic party felt bound to defend the right of property established by the laws now in beieg, ar.l they earnestly disclaimed any in tention of disturbing the Protestant religion and establishment. This petition was remarkable, because it was presented to the House of Commons by a Noble a-id Learned Lord, as he now :vas, but who was at that time a Member of the House of Cc mrnons. He seas sorry that that Noble and Learned Lord was rot then in his place, because lie was quite sure Ile would hove concurred in what he was then stating. The petitioners denied any intention of subverting the Church Establishmeat fur the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment in its stead. It so happened that that Noble end Learned Lord—lion. and ' earnel Gentleman as he then was—in presenting that petition, remarked on the oath ia a very strong way.—('clear, hear.) He aid, you have get all tee security that oaths can by possibility give. I (holy the e a d th t o h l e i t r ' e s wasait o a f La h n to to devise give e anything very s g is r s a t e r L o i n t h and R o he ni a s n t a c t at that time to the Legislature, and to the Protestant State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of their fidelity to the engagerneets they ;sere willing to enter into. The Secretary of the Catholics of Queens County, a member of a Catholic Board, had declared before a Committee of the House of Commons—and he need not say that a gentleman in that situation was equally worthy of credit whether on ooh or declaration—that gentleman said he believed the Catholic body had no desire to intermeddle with the Church Establishment. That Gentleman was then asked, • Have you in conversations at meetings of Catholics, or corn reulicatiens with Catholics, ever heard any speculation ad vanced of a change in that est tblialiment being de sireable to the Catholics of Ireland ?" The cnswer wad " Never, nor do I believe the Catholics ever wished or desired it. As a Roman Catholic, and communi cating with the respect a bl e p or ti o n of them, we have always deeply regretted that the subject of our emancipation has bisen :nixed up still) ecclesiastical matters. We deem it unfortu nate that the questions were not separated, and our would be that every p oss ibl e guar d and defence and pro tection allctit7slmu her rig should et i l l i t r s ow an n d round the He would now a d ver t to some c l er i ca l statements. He would read sorre de c l ara ti ons o f D r . M'H a 'e—not then so hi g h in the b s Church as he is no w —b u t i n a position which ent itled his opi s shouldE sEstablished l e d Church, ei preserved." salons as to Catholi cs t o great respect. In 1826, Dr. Mt Hale, alto had -been fur eleven years lecturer en Dogmatical Phi losophy in Maynooth College, stated, before the Commis- . shiners el' Inquiry into Irish Education, as follows " Without reference to Parliamentary enactments, I do not consider the Church Establishment in this country as productive of benefit to this country, but as I am bound to obey the law, I shall acquiesce in the enactments of the Legislat etre. if there were no laws to bind me, I should feel no respect for the Establishment ; as it is, I am bound by the Legislature of the coun tr y , and re spect its enactments." In another place, " although the great mass of the Catholic population derived no benefit from the Established Church, and are therefore under no moral obligation for paying tithes; to: it ; yet so long as the law re quires that tithes shall be paid, they will acquiesce in its deci sions." Ile went on to say, "as to the dignitaries of tile Es tablished Church in Ireland, we shall never refuse their ju risdiction in their temporalities, or the possession of their titles, power lv e o t u o ght take not t h e t m o r a e w f a u y s e , and hon c o o u n r s t i o d e w r h i n o g m that, conceiving that the State which conferred them alone has the o a u s r S is t. d P ue " , or say, tri bute to whom tribute.' " Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) would s rfer o e n to a y than Mr. O'Connell rimo plta • h n i t ms te el s f t , im a o n nl of no less d ia whichhest a r atedpeas having been quoted in that House by the Earl of Win chilsca, though he (the Bishop of Exeter) had not had time to refer to the exact place from which it was taken. The questions asked were, " Suppose witness to receive a carte blanche on the subject of Catholic emancipation, and were required to fill up the extent of concession with which the Roman Catholics would be satisfied, how would he do so, and what would they require ?" Mr. O'Connell replied that he would require that the doors of both Houses of Parliament should be thrown open to the Catholics, .rd that persons holding that re li g ion should be eli g ible to hold the situation of would e Judges, &c., from which they were excluded. This was what require and what would satisfy them. In answer to other questions, Mr. O'Connell said he would recommend that no concessions whatever should be made to the Roman Catholics, unless the Establishment in. Ireland should be ren dered inviolable. It was then said " the recommendation now given, and the opinions now expressed by witness, appear to be at variance with his speeches in the Catholic As sociation, and elsewhere." Mr. O'Connell replied, that he did not hold himself bound by what he had said in that Assembly or elsewhere under particular circumstances — that many things had been spoken by him in the heat of debate, to which in cooler moments he would not give his sanction. Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought he had established that Roman Catholics on their part were ready to enter into this contract ; and from what he had said of the declaration in the other House of Parliament, on the 11th of March, 1834, it was clearly so considered by Parliament. On the 28th of April, 1837, on the Marquis of Downshirc presenting a petition from the Protestants of Ireland, stating that they did not approve of that oath, the Noble Lord near him said he did not approve of that oath, but their Lordships knew low it was got into the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Without that oath their Lordships knew the Bill would never have been got through Parliament. That was very true and very satisfactory to show that ,which amounted to a contract on both sides. He still hoped that they should have the advantage of hear ing, what must be known to certain Noble Lords—namely,' what passed between the leaders of the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Whether there was a contract or not, it would be far from deciding this question ; the great point was, whether these persons had, as the petitioners stated, violated their sworn engagements ? Now, in order to see whether they had, the first thing necessary would be to ascertain what their sworn engagements were, to look at: the oath, and also to look at what must be considered as the fair interpretation of that oath. He did not like very much to fatigue their Lordships with reading the oath at full ; he thought he need not do more than refer to it generally. By that oath the Catholic dis claimed, disavowed, and abjured any intention to subvert the Protestant Church, or to exercise any privilege he possessed to the detriment of the Protestant religion. Now, in order to come to the real meaning of those words, he did not think that much argument was necessary. The intentions of parties were not to be taken into account in administering the oath ; but what was to be considered was, what the parties did ; and contemporaneous history or acts, or the words of the Legislature itself, might be referred t" Now, for that purpose he would request the attention of their Lordships while the Clerk at the table read certain extracts from the Speech his Majesty George the Fourth was pleased to com mand the Lords Commissioners to deliver in the year 1829. The speech and the addresss in answer to it having been read by the clerk, the Right Reverend Prelate proceeded to say that he felt he was not going too far in saying that when they considered the very solemn communication which passed between his late Majesty, King George the Fourth, and this House—and, indeed, he might add, the other House, for he believed the Address sent up by the Commons was as'usua an echo to the Speech—and when they saw the pointed manner in which his Majesty referred to the oath by which he felt himself bound to maintain the rights of the Established Church and of its Bishops and Clergy, and when they recollected the nature of the answer which they bad returned to that speech—they must feel that it amounted to no less than a soleren com pact between this House and the Sovereign, that they should preserve those rights inviolate. For the security given in return for that boon they should look to the construction which was to be placed on the speech itself, by which it was manifest that it was intended by his Majesty that they should guard against these dangers. It did not seem, however, that this was considered by all,mcn as the right mode of interpreting it. A Learned Mem ber in the other House of Parliament said that he felt himself at liberty, as a Protestant, to deal with:the whole question of this oath, according to the construction put upon it by the House of Commons, and that was to be taken from the failure of Mr. W. Horton's motion for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament, should they attempt to vote on any matter affecting the rights of the Established Church. That was not the ground on which that motion was refused—it was a very wild motion, and, in his opinion, the other House of Par liament acted very wisely in refusing it. It was said on that occasion, that if we were afraid of the hostility of the Catholics to the Protestant Church, then they must he kept out of Parliament ; and if they were ad mitted, they must be bound so as to render them harm less.—(llear, hear.) In several publications another no tion was broached—that the oath was not to affect Members of either House of Parliament in their legislative capacity. That notion was first broached by a very honourable man, the bro ther of a Noble Lord, the Hon. Mr. Langdale, and was sub sequently assented to by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. They said they were bound as well as the Protestants to uphold the establishment so long as the law remained in its then present state ; but as a Legislator, he was perfectly free to do what he pleased for amending it, the great boon—the only object of the Catholic party for a long time—was to get into Parliament, and, therefore, it was extraordinory that the se curity that was to be taken was not to apply to them in their legislative capacity. It was singular if it should not so apply ; the Legislasure had fixed it in the commencement of the Act. He did not think it necessary to waste their Lordship? time further in urging that point, but it had been assimilated to a declaration which was usually made on taking office. That he believed was also a notion of Mr. Langdale, who put it upon a par with the obligation of all Ministers on taking office not to use the influence arising from their office to weaken the Established Church ; but the Honourable Gen tleman did not advert to one peculiarity in the case, which was, that when he was urging on a question destructive or injurious to the Established Church in Ireland, the de claration to which he referred had a special limitation. The declaration, so far as it went, only bound him to pre serve the Church, so far as it was established in England. He did not contend that they were specially bound by peculiar tenderness for the Church of Ireland. Their Lordships would see, that it was very possible for Honourable Members who meant to discharge their duty both to the Church and to the S ate to have a very different view of that which might be in accordance with their oaths. A Noble Viscount, who was a Member of the other House of Barliamont for the County of Northampton, and also a Member of her Majesty's Go vernment, whom he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew to be a sincere Christian and a good Churchman—and be said that with great sincerity—that Noble Lord had bound himself to do nothing to injure the Church as now established in Eng land; and so far as that declaration went it was not in ccohnosirsetieknti;fl b l u r t , l a li n e d co a t d e a r n e d i o t s h o a l t t t t o h e tli c e x i s t l e r n i s e i e i p o e f o p t l h e e . Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) would have thought that the Noble Lord must have felt himself restricted from doing so, and that he could not consider himself quite at liberty to use the influence of the high office which he held as a member of her Majesty's Government for the advancement of that object. He, therefore, must say, he thought that declaration had as little to do with the Church of Ireland as they could . well conceive any thing to have.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He was, indeed, very happy to say, that while some Roman Catholics had been eager, apparently eager, and certainly they bad acted as if they were erect' --.'o find some mode of getting out of the meshes of this oath— there were others who had shown a very honourable readiness to adhere to their engagement?, and to sty within the limitations of the Act of Parliament and of the cith they had taken. He might mention in an especial manner a Noble Lord, then a Member of the other House, now an ornament of their Lordship? House—and as he was not present, he would mention his name, the Earl of Fingal—tie had declared that he had no , these loose notions of the oath be lied taken, and that he considered him .elf bound not to do anything that might impair or injure the Church in Ireland. That Noble Lord had shewn his sincerity in that, by doing what he must have known would have hazarded his return to his seat in Parliament at a new election, and the consequence was, that ho lost his election. He was rejected by the county of Kildare (several Noble Lords, " Meath, Meath.") Whatever county it was, he hazarded it with his eyes open. A NOBLE. Loan here rose and made a few observations which were inaudible i n the gallarv. The Bishop of EXETER would not argue after what had been stated, as if that Noble Lord was a martyr to his oath. Mr. Rielly declared similar sentiments —he was not a martyr, but he also lost his seat after making that declaration. Whether any other Roman Catholic Irish Members were equally ready to make the declaration, and suffer the consequences, he did not know ; but be rejoiced to say they had an instance of an English Member who did so— he meant the Honourable Mr. Petre—that gentleman made a similar declaration, and he stated that nothing would induce him to act upon the interpretation of the oath which had been nut upon it by some gentlemen. It was not for him, an humble individual as he was, to say that that was the only interpretation those words would bear ; but it was his duty in presenting petitions on this subject, to declare his. opinion of what the right interpretation of the oath was. I disclaim any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law, within these realms." He (the Bishop of Exeter) thought that in point of fact this oath prevented any conscientious man who had an intention of subverting Church Establishments from qualify ing himself fur a scat in Parliament by taking that oath. That was what he meant. As to the next pas sage in the oath, " I do solemnly swear that I will never exercise any privilege to which I may be en titled to disturb the Protestant Church and Protestant religion as established by law. ' He (the Bishop of Exeter) did not hold that Roman Catholic Members were compelled by this to leave the House when any question regarding the Protestant religion in this country was brought forward ; they are there as legislators assembled under a writ of summons which calls upon them to advise their Sovereign upon certain important matters touch ing her Royal person and Government. It would be too much to say that parties having such a writ of summons should be precluded from advising her Majesty upon one portion of public affairs. But he held there was a restraint put on them not put upon Protestant Members. The oath administered to the Roman Catholic Members was, that they should not use any privilege they possessed—and this could only refer to their Parliamentary privilege, for other privileges were men tioned afterwards—to disturb the Protestant religion or Pro testant Government. Now ho wee happy to say that he could produce satisfactory testimony from a conscientious Roman Catholic Gentleman as to the obligation of this oath. He would read a passage from a letter which had been published by Mr. Waterton, dated Wakefield, the 6th of March, l 535, and which was in the following terms :—" The Catholic Relief Bill did nothing for me. I can neither be a Member of Parliament, nor a Magistrate; for no power on earth shall induce me to take Peel's oath, if I understand an oath, and I ought to do, for 1 have been mall). years with the Jesuits." He (the Bishop of Exeter) begged to remark this, for the Jesuits appeared to have taught this gentleman the right interpretation at least, though they had not been so successful in others.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) "If I understand an oath, I consider that thisioath prevents me from doing anything to subvert the present Church Establishment. Now I will do everything in my power fairly and honourably as a gentleman to upset that Church as by law established."— ( Hear, and laughter.) Thiz was a very fair avowal on the part of that gentleman, and he, the Right Rev. Prelate very much a pplauded him for his candour. He was sorry some mode of in ducing this gentleman to take the oath had not been devised, because in that case he was sure he would not have endeavoured to upset the Church. Probably the Noble Baron, the Secretary for the Colonies, would be able to give the House some information on the point he was about to state. He had heard that a Roman Catholic of very high func tion!, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta, was nominated to be of his late Majesty's Council in that island, and was required to take the oath under the Act for repealing the Roman Catholic disabiilities, and that that Gentleman, very much to his credit, said lie would not take that oath, in consequence of which he was not admitted to be a Member of the Council. This statement he had from a person of very high respectability, and if the fact was otherwise, the No ble Baron would most probably be able to tell the House. Lord G L ENE LG said there was a question of that sort, but that he was not able to say what oath it related to. The Bishop of EXETER was much obliged to the Noble Baron. h seemed, therefore, that there had been some discussion about some oath, and this gentleman was a Roman Catholic. He (the Right Rev. Prelate) was sorry it had not occurred to him earlier, because then he could have given the Noble Baron notice that he would have asked the question, when in all probability be would have been able to have answered it in positive terms. lie would, however, venture to think it very likely that it was this oath. Lord GLE NE LG—No, no—that was not to be assumed. The Bishop of EXETER—There was a discussion about some oath—what oath could it be if it was not this oath? No doubt the Noble Baron would prepare himself, because he must have means to inform the House what oath it was. If he did not, he (the Right Rev. Prelate) would take upon him self to conclude that it must have been this very oath. Lord G L ENE L G most assuredly could not tell just now. Lord ABE RDE EN knew that it was this oath. The Bishop of EXETER then had the authority of the late Secretary for the Colonies, that it was the late Bishop of Malta who declined to qualify him self for a very high office, because the qualification was by taking an oath, which would prevent him from doing that as a Roman Catholic, which he (the Right Rev. Prelate) believed it was his intention to do—namely, tos upset the Established Church, and to weaken the Protestant Religion, which," without violating the oath, this oath, he could not do. He chose, therefore, rather to forego the office than to violate the oath tendered to him upon that occasion ; and these were men which he (the Right Rev. Prelate) sincerely honoured.—( Hear.) In the course of the discussion of this oath, another person has put another construction on the word " Establishment" than that which was usually ascribed to it. Mr. O'Connell was reported in Hansard, March 11, 1834, to have spoken to this effect. He contended that under this clause all that the Roman Catholics were made to swear was, that " they would not subvert the Established Church." He would not charge that Mr. O'Connel used the phrase, for, in a nice balancing of words be should feel some hesitation before putting words into a person's mouth. There was a considerable difference between the words " Established Church, " and the " present Church Establishment." The Church Establishment could only mean those rights, possessions, privileges of all kinds, which the State took care the Church should possess, whether by ori ginal endowment from others, or donations from itself. If the word " Establishment" had any meaning, it must be con sidered as securing to the parties all their endowments.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) And here again he would refer to the words of George the Fourth, submitted to Parliament. He then proceeded. There were two Churches in Ireland— one established by law, the other by the people. Would the Protestants be less an Established Church it deprived of their temporalities? To be sure they would ;it would cease to be an Establishment, but it would not cease to be a Church—that was beyond. the reach of mortal laws to effect. Estab lishment meant, and could only be understood to mean, the rights and endowments , of the Church protected by the law. This he hold to be the duty imposed upon the Roman Catholics—these were the sworn engagements en tered into, and those engagements it was that the pe titioners stated to hare been violated.—( Hear, hear.) They were here met in linuni by an objection in the nature of a question which was—what was it that kept the Roman Catho lies so long out of Parliament ? Why , t h e ir adherence, it was induce them to their oaths—an adherence which nothin g could them to violate. lie admitted that at the first appearance, there was much in that argument.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The oath required from Roeten Catholics had long been a matter of complaint. They complained that it was not an oath merely binding the m not to injure or subvert the institutions of the State as by law established, but that it violated one of the principal dogmas of their faith. They said that that obnoxious oath was proposed to them because they were esteemed enemies of the Church, and asked what was the utility of putting it, if they gave security not to interfere with the Church Establishment ? Now he felt that there was much in that argument, but still he did not think it conclusive. What was the history of the necessity which required Catholics to take an oath abjuring transubstan tiation? It was this, they were found not to have adhered to their other engagements. A learned and pious ecclesiastic, named Father Walsh, who wrote, in 1664, what he termed " A Re monstrance to the Roman Catholics of England, Ireland, and Scotland," gave us his reasons for objecting to the oath. He had said that he thought the Roman Catholic oath had been broken, and it would be affectation in him to affect to be ignorant that a good deal had been observed upon his opinion. He would, putting eside opinions of the petitioners, take leave to argue the case upon his own view of it. It was not an im pertinent wasting of their Lordships' time, inasmuch as they would find in the votes of the proceedings of the other House, which were communicated by the courtesy of that House to their Lordships, on Monday, the 26th of February, the following notice, " That in case the notice of Lord Maidstone be brought forward and entertained by the House, Lord Jelin Russell to call the attention of the House to the charge of perjury brought by the Bishop of Exeter against certain Members of this House." He had not been able to see, in any subsequent statement of the notices and proceedings of that House, any further allusion to it, and it did not appear, although Lord Maidstone proceeded, and the Houso entertained his motion, that the Noble Lord had proceeded with his motion. Ile hoped be mighthave their Lordships' indulgence if he ventured to read for them a portion of the charge which the Noble Lord had intended, and for aught he knew, intends to bring before the House of Commons—( Hear) —especially as he (the Bishop of Exeter) could not be there to defend himself, and as their Lordships could not be there to hear the charge and his defence. In 1826, at his triennial visitation lie had addressed the Clergy of his diocese, and in the course of it he addressed the clergy at great length upon matters affecting the religion of the country. He would now read to their Lordships the passage in his charge which had occasioned so much animad version. It was as follows :—" On th's Bill I shall he brief ; but I cannot but congratulate you, on higher grounds than sympathy with your distressed and excellent brethren, the clergy of that country, that the cause of true religion has nut been there abandoned; that those moderate funds (for such they have been proved to be) which the piety and wisdom of former ages have provided for the maintenance, and the extension, of a pure faith throughout Ireland, have not become the prey of a perfidious fection, whieh could not have acquired the powers of mischief, which, unhappily, they possess and exer cise, but by entering into engagements, and binding them selves by pledges, which Englishmen and Protestants would deem it impossible for any who call themselves Christians to dare to violate. In the discussion of the measure in Parlia ment, I felt it my duty to rest my resistance to it on this point —to denounce as treachery, aggravated by perjury, such an exercise of rights, acquired under an oath not to weaken or disturb the Protestant religion.' In truth, when we call to mind the soleinn and oft-repeated protestations made by the Roman Catholics and by their friends for them—of the sense in which they took that oath, and of the awful' obligation im posed by it upon their conscience--and then advert to the cer tein consequences of the proposed Bill (if it had passed), as avowed by its chief adviser—that it would prove a serious dis couragement, a heavy blow to the Protestant religion, and a triumph to its enemies ; but that it was a measure which the augmented force of the Roman Catholics, and their unrniti gable hostility to that religion, had rendered necessary : when we call to mind that such was the nature of the measure, such the argument by which it-was enforced, I know not in chat milder terms the indignation of an honest mind can be expressed than by characterising the conduct of those who de manded it as treachery, aggravated by perjury." His object unquestionably was to show that the Roman Catholics were exercising the power which they had acquired for purposes which they heal pledged themselves not to seek. The Noble Lord who had given notice of a motion in the other House talked of his (the Bishop of Exeter) having brought " a charge against Members of this House" (the House of Commons). Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would not avail himself of the technical objection, that what he stated in 1836 could not possibly be said to have reference to the present House of Commons. Indeed, he should be ashamed of himself if ho did not distinctly declare that in that charge he did alludo to some Hon. Gentlemen who were also Members of the present House of Commons. But why did the Noble Lord state that his (the Bishop of Exeter's) charge was directed against Members of the House of Commons? Why not also against Members of their Lord ships' House? To whom did he (the Bishop of Exeter) allude in that charge of his ? lie alluded to the agitators in Ireland who endeavoured to subvert the Protestant Establish ment. There were some agitators, however, who were not in Parliament. There was Dr. M' Hale, a member of the Ca tholic Association. There was Dr. Murray, who supported Mr. O'Connell on the occasion of his eernint,s forward and carrying on a crusade against tithes. On that occasion Dr. Murray sent Mr. O'Connell 101. to aid and comfort him in his exhibition. It had been distinctly declared that the object of the General Association in Ireland was to effect the entire abolition of tithes in that country. So it was underst oo d by Dr. Murray, and so h e believed it was underst oo d by every Catholic bishop in Ireland. He begged th e i r Lordships' attention to the following quotation from Mr. O'Connell's last address to the electors of Kilkenny : " I heartily supported the Ministry of Lord M e lb ourne i n th e i r ne w measure of tithe relief, not as giving all I wan t e d for the people of Ireland , but as giving us a part, and establishing an appropriation principle, which would n ecessar ily p ro duce much more. Nothing, however, can be so absurd as the allegation of its finality. That Bill, had it pa sse d i n t o a l a w, was equally capable of being altered or repeal e d th at sess ion; that is, in the session in which it should hare been passed. I, therefore, who am for the total aboliti o n o f tith es , vo ted for the abolition in the . first instance, of part only." What also were the reso lutions moved by Mr. O'Con n ell a t th e meeting of the General Association in Dublin on the 19th of January, 1835 ? The Rev. Prelate then proceeded to read the resolutions in question. There was another Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Mem ber for Tipperary, who was reported to have said in the House of Commons, on the. 23d of July, 1835 :—" Abandoning . all metaphysical disquisitions, I proceed, not to a conside ration of mere expediency, but of paramount and dire necessity ; and I lay down a very plain proposition, and it is this—(l do not mean it to be offensive, but however harsh the truth, it must be told) —it is this—whatever may be your inclination, you have- not the ability to main tain the Irish Establishment. Why ? Because the power of the Irish people has risen to such a pitch, that to the mistaken interests of an impuissant minority the rights, undoubted although not undisputed, of the enormous majority For . cannot any longer with impunity be sacrificed. what are all these risks to be incurred? —for what are all these ap palling hazards to be run?—for what stake is till; awful die to be cast ?—for what into all these affrighting perils are ee to rush ? For what into all these terrific p ossibilities (for likeli hoods I will not call them) are we madly,. desperately, impi ously to plunge?" Now, that co uld be interpreted only by the understanding that the Protestant religion was contrary to the true religion, and that it was impious to support that re ligion which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had nevertheless sworn that he would support. He (h? Bishop of Exeter) had no hesitation in declaring it to be his perfect conviction, a conviction as sincere as any which ho had ever entertained upon any subject in the course of his life, that any individual having taken the oath prescribed to a Roman Catholic Member of Porliament, who afterwards uttered 1 such words, or anything like such words, as those wh ich he I had read from the reported speech of the Honourable and Learned Member for Tipperary, had grossly departed ell from the obligations which the oath imposed upon him. This declaration was rendered indispensable by the course pursued with respect to himself (the Bishop of Exeter). He bad no alternative but either to submit to the imputation of having made an unfounded charge, or to show that hie charge was a well-founded one. There was another remark which he wished to make. The Irish Catholic Association, in their address to the people of England this year, stated, " Far from meditating the overthrow or destruction of the Protestant Government and Protestant Establishment of the empire, we are ready to swear, as we already do swear, to sup port, &c." But what did the Honourable and Learned Gen tlemen the Members for Dublin and Tipperary do in their ca pacity of Legislators ? They had sworn to do nothing to subvert or injure the Protestant Establishment, yet they did every thing in their power to subvert or injure it. The con tradiction between their declaration and their acts was I repos terous. He alluded to the following passages in a speech ad dressed by the lion. and Learned Member for Tipperary to his constituents in October, 1835 :—" Our eyes were opened, and while we became conscious of the fatal results of our dis cussion with the Whigs, we determined to repair the evil, and never again to fall alto a similar error. Accordingly we entered with them into a close alliance, and at the meeting at Lord Lichfield's formed that compact, and, I trust, indissoluble junction, by which so much has been effected." " The complete union of the popular party, of which the meet ing at Lichfield-house were the foundation, is indispensable for the maintenance of the Administration, and therefore, for the good of the empire." " At these meetings what souse was taken by Mr. O'Connell? The most moderate, the most prac tical, and that which led to the most successful issue. There it , was that the course of proceeding was devised which broke up the Government of Sir Robert Peel. What a glorious and at the same time what an incalculably serviceable circumstance it was, that by a resolution on the Irish Church, and the great principle of secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property, we should have annihilated the Tories!" Let their Lordships mark the commencement, only the commencement of the policy, by which it was desired Ireland should for the future be governed. But did he say that statement was absolutely correct? No I but it rested upon the authority of a re port of a speech which had spread throughout the country. It had been observed by a Noble and Learned Lord, whom he i was glad to see in his place, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, _ whose displeasure had been excited by his observations, that • he had not only charged some with perjury, but others with subornation of perjury. Now, with regard to that, he could have no hesitation in saying that any person who was privy to the commission of perjury, and either employed it as an instru ment for his own purposes, or even neglected to expose it, was guilty hourly of subornation of perjury. That was the opinion which he conscientiously entertained, and in his character of a Bishop had no hesitation to avow. He had, however, been told, upon high authority—that of the Noble and Learned Lord the Chancellor of Ireland—that he could be impeached for it. The Noble and Learned Lord had, in his place in Par liament, alluded to the charge, and said it was impeachable. Upon that occasion he had done all which, by the rules of , the House, he was enabled to do, and he had ventured to cry out " Impeach," he hoped not in an offensive manner, but by' way of a quiet defiance, which the circumstances called upon him to give. That impeachment had not taken place any more than the motion of the Noble Lord in the other House. But these were not the only instances in which his conduct had been censured. The Attorney-General in the last Para liament was reported to have said something which had greatlk su prised him—in a speech on the Church rate Bill, on the 14th of March, 1837, when he declared that the Bishop of Exe er, in his charge, had been guilty of the greatest libel, and if ever he filed a criminal information against any one, it should be against the Bishop of Exeter. But subsequently lie was reported to have said another thing, which e ras ill still more surprising, and upon which he had thought it neeee sary to collate the reports , he found the m confirming each other ; and upon that occasion the Atto rne y -General was su r , „. posed to have said ; _n That he had recently read a Nisi- tation charge of the Bishop of Exeter, in which the Rig Rev. Prelate stated that he (the Attorney- General) had been„ most remiss in not prosecuting certain libellous publication s. That was the especial ground upon which it was declared t0a...„, have been most indecent and indecorous in him to have eon .", mcnted upon the delay in the prosecution of that libel. New. he could assure their Lordships that he had, notwithstandinre e g the unpleasant nature of the task, read that charge over thee . times, with a view to find out any foundation for that overstate times, scant, mcnt. But he had been unable to discover — n ot a sentime or the entire language—but even a scintilla of evidence, nYe T I 1 ,. which any honest man could place su ch a construction.. :‘`,' was his intention, on the first night a fter the accusation 5; been made, to come down to the H ouse, but he found it did not sit, and on the next occasion a friend to whom lie men .- tinned it said that the individual had received such a smashing from Lord Stanley, that it would be cruel to inflict anything in addition. --(Cheers.) But he (the Bishop of Exeter) re plied, '` Perhaps the poor man is dumb."—( A laugh.) He could not help feeling it in the highest degree inconsistent that two individuals who occupicd such high stations as the m i Secretary of State for the Home Deportment and the principal Ani Law Adviser of the Crown should not h av e followed up such a grave charge against bins. If he had no regard to the se verer duties of his office, which would , in common justice, re quire that he should make good his accusa tion, he (the se- Bishop of Exeter) hoped that he (Lord John Russell) had some friend i‘s that House that would tell him t hat he (the 13ishoi: of Exeter) trusted in his honour, in his generosity, to cor ed forward and sustain his charge.—( Cheers.) H e now 04 3 ° , that the Noble Lord would at once come forward in an o e p: r decided manner, so that he might meet h im face to facc, else that he would be silent on the subject for ever, Vicount MELBOURNE was sure that the N oble Lord t h e. 1 11 Secretary for the Home Department had no o ther motive ,tna bringing forward the matter on t hat occasion than to show ii tt r w e . 1 exceeding inconvenience that must arise from the indulge/3.) of accusations and recriminations of this nature.—( A la t t„g, a b t The thing originated in a breach of privilege, and the ;via Reverend Prelate seemed to think so himself. Bishop of EXETER—No, no. Viscount MELBOURNE thought if the Right Revererili Prelate read his charge again, he must say tha t it costa tin ,ail a very strong passage for him to deliver on such an occasioct .11 s trong respecting the individuals reflected on, and strove respecting the persons to whom it was delivered ; and wll° ' 0 instead of bring impelled. to greater political violence , !' 0 ,.." quired rather to ho rest.a'aed from the inlul,gence to they had already been accustomed. However, he ` va t of opinion that it would have been better if it had e" been taken any notice of, as he now thought that anY fe. r : ther prosecution would be injudicious : yet he could prem, l _; the Right Reverend Prelate that he would deliver ."' r 44 message to his Noble Friend, and that he should eite t e ... hear no more of the charge, or that it should be inve s ,, l .. gated to his satisfaction. As to the meeting at Lichficlil_ orii wlito ; house, so often alluded to, it was a meeting to settle I ..it questions of reform, and of the administration to accompl i s h it, but not to settle anything else. As such it might slate; 4111 been entitled to his animadversion ; but if lie meant to that it was intended to settle anything there for the giving g the Irish Church, then he stated what was not the fact. the had never approved of the Roman Catholic oath, though t a Right Reverend Prelate did ; and it was found at the e nd then all all the securities of oaths were unavailing, embarrassing sonlle - i alarming others, evaded by those whose nice consciences f e ' them inapplicable, repugnant to most, and an insult to . all. ( Hear, limn ) If once the Protestant State were in gr ey danger, oaths would afford no security ; for at the Refortn a ; tion all the dignitaries and officials of Parliament, civil 0' military, from the Lord Chancellor to the constable, We re sworn, by command of Henry VIII., to oppose the new &ea_ , , trines. Even Lord Cromwell, and the great authorities Or the Reformation, were sworn to oppose the very o p inions whie they were the great advocates of.—( Hear, hear.) How us c l less, then, was this oath ! But suppose it really viol about How did the Bishop of Exeter mean to act ? Was he a fr ama to take away their privileges, or did hr propo se to ...a other oaths more strict ? He must feel convinced that it g o a o : to the good feeling, honour, and patriotism of the Irish tha man Catholics that he must trust alone, and not to anY 138 ,0 that he could devise. He must say, in conclusion, that hof not think it any violation of his oath for any Roman 11' Member to vote on the subject of Irish ecclesiastical reform r ; g The Bishop of LL AND AFF could not help exP ress i l ue d his surprise at the manner in which the Noble Viicount had commented on the violation of their oaths by these entered into solemn engagements te observe them. It sect, to be the ground of much of the declamation which woe.; heard on this subject, that to make the charge of per jury that as grave an offence as to commit the crime. He kne w • t i n s_ perjury was a serious charge, and ought not to be made aga' v , any man without proof ; but, as a general principle, he erne shrunk from professing the same opinions as those &liv by the Right Rev. Prelate with reference to the conduc t e certain Roman Catholics. who :St The Marquis of CLAN RIC ARD E maintained that if Right Reverend Prelate believed that perjury and subonatt°o. of perjury existed, he ought to attempt the remedy of Suchet to state of things. He thought a declaration of faith tang — f be altogether omitted. It was very insulting to Member4_ the Roman Catholic persuasion, and it was repugnant to . h h ; own feelings, however strong his belief in the doctrine that be, that he, for instance, should be called upon to swear t the mass was an idolatrous ceremony. He should be 51 ,1 1 5 ° ready to give his assistance to the Right Rev. Prelate fer h ' ie f purpose of introducing some rneasure to the mis c ef . a of the present system, instead of allowing the Membersis,_.. Legislature to be controlled by an authority to whose jur 11 the tioe they were not subject ; for it was the undoubted inten titan._ 1 of the Legislature, and the rule of Parliament, that eit! 1 Members should be left to the exercise of their unfettered judgments. The Earl of SHREWSBURY agreed w ith the Noble brought b t Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) that any measure roug forward by the Government was with a view to suppo rt religious institutions of the country as establish ed b y law ; in if if he had any s c ruple in giving his sanction to measures. cad traduced with the approval of the Crown, w hich was the h __ of the Church in these countries, it was beca use he felt he wet thereby aiding and abetting the improvement and stab ilit y institutions institutions in the truth and utility o f which he did not , lieve. It was most unjust to impute to tho se who followed their judgment evil intentions, when they only discharged their duty in the exercise of their constitutioaal rights. (Hear, hear.) Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that the imputation of ■ I